Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules Against Woman Who Didn't Like Search Results

Posted by samzenpus on from the beverly-by-any-other-name dept.

The Seventh Circuit Court has ruled that Beverly Stayart can't sue Yahoo! because she did not like what she saw on the results page after searching for her name. Stayart claimed that her "internet presence" was damaged by Yahoo! because results for a search of her name showed listings which included pharmaceuticals and adult oriented websites. The court disagreed. From the article: "Stayart had sued under Section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act, which prohibits false advertising, false implications of endorsement, and so on. Her problem was that a Lanham Act claim requires a showing that the plaintiff has a 'commercial interest' to protect, and Stayart did not have a commercial interest in her own name."

15 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. But.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Someone like Tiger Woods or Steve Jobbs could sue Yahoo!?

    1. Re:But.... by mea37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More likely the judge is just using the most open-and-shut logic applicable in order to put this to bed at minimal cost to all involved. My gut reaction was that this was a Bad Thing, as it left the door open for other litigious behaviors; but when I thought about it, that's the right thing for the court to do: address the case at hand, narrowly.

      Probably we could have a grand old time arguing about who's responsible for keyword associations, and who owns what, and on and on... but when the law in question can be quickly shown as inapplicable by examining a single fact, what's the point letting her dump money into an effort that forces Yahoo and the taxpayers to spend additional money as well?

      If she's really committed to wasting resources, perhaps she'll have her lawyer come up with another theory with which to bring a suit that cannot be so quickly set aside; if so, I guess the fun will start anew.

    2. Re:But.... by zeropointburn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just curious, but isn't it a commercial interest in the modern world when search results are used as part of employee screening? If my name brought up a bunch of scams and raunchy porn in a web search, it is quite possible that a prospective employer would decide not to hire me because of it (in whole or in part). This could be an impact in decisions that directly affect my income.

      My guess is that the legal meaning of 'commercial' has little to do with the common meaning, thus leading to my irrelevant conjecture above.

      --
      -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
  2. Be Honest by Ironhandx · · Score: 4, Funny

    How many of you just went to google images and turned safe search off and searched for this womans name?

    I think the answer will illustrate just how bad an idea this was for her.

    1. Re:Be Honest by Ironhandx · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you RTFA(I know, I know) she sued both Yahoo and Google, but they haven't tossed the google case out of court yet.

  3. Beverly Stayart free porn by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 4, Funny

    Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart

  4. So what if she did? by KnownIssues · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what if she did have a "commercial interest" to protect? Could the court have ruled that Yahoo! could be sued for search results in that case? How would you prove that it's not just someone with the same name? It's almost too bad she didn't have a commercial interest to protect, because it would be interesting to see what the ruling would have been in that case. And it would be even more interesting to see how Yahoo! could comply.

    1. Re:So what if she did? by tool462 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And in her case, she should be glad her search results are polluted with links that are obviously unrelated to her. It will cause any potential employer who might search her name to question the legitimacy of anything he finds.

  5. Anti-Streisend effect....? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The hundreds of news stories about this trial seem to have swamped the juicy links and made them vanish.

    Is this an 'anti-Streisand' effect?

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Anti-Streisend effect....? by srussia · · Score: 5, Funny

      The hundreds of news stories about this trial seem to have swamped the juicy links and made them vanish.

      Is this an 'anti-Streisand' effect?

      No, this is the "Stayart Effect" ®

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
  6. She got what she wanted by guyminuslife · · Score: 4, Interesting

    She may have lost in court, but if you search for "Beverly Stayart" now, the first result is actually her.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  7. Re:Backwards thinking court by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Someone who is googling and not testing whether the results are false is probably someone you don't want to work for. Also someone who googles a lot would hopefully recognize that sort of thing happens a lot.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  8. Python? by snspdaarf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex Beverly Stayart dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens Beverly Stayart free porn sex sex anal Beverly Stayart

    "Could I have that without so much Beverly Stayart in it?"

    "You mean free porn sex sex anal free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens free porn sex sex anal free free porn sex sex anal sex midget teen teens sexy sex dirty sex orgy anal lube sex sex teens free porn sex sex anal? Eugh!"

    "What do you mean, 'Eugh!'? I don't like Beverly Stayart!"

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  9. Beverly Stayart? Pfffft. by bobdotorg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's just hope that Bobbie Goatse never googles herself.

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  10. I sympathize with this woman by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are others with your plight

    Sincerely,

    John Q. Viagra